JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Europeans no longer feel safe because of Russia; A First Person Account (Foreign Policy Brief #218)
During my trip across Europe a week ago, I spoke with people from different countries — ordinary men and women I met along the way. I asked each of them whether they feel safe in their country today and whether they expect a war.
How the Trump Administration Shook Up Education — and What It Means for Students with Disabilities (Education Policy Brief #211)
While most of the major media headlines about the Trump Administration’s education policies have focused on ideological battles with the nation’s premier universities, a quieter but more radical reshaping is taking place at the heart of the American education system itself.
Saudi Arabia Enters the Video Game Industry (Foreign Policy Brief #219)
Saudi’s investments in sports, in particular, has been labeled “sportswashing” and a way for the Saudi Arabian government to increase its publicity and popularity in the world while also maintaining a regime that violates human rights. Their move into new sectors and industries has also been a part of their Saudi Vision 2030 program which aims to diversify their entire economy away from traditional fossil fuels (which has propped their economies for decades) and transition into a post-oil world. Is the move to purchase EA a new moment of economic diversification, or is it more in the way of “sportswashing”? The answer isn’t totally clear.
Trump’s Termination of U.S. Exchange Programs Weakens America at Home and Abroad
Diplomatic “soft power” is related to a country’s ability to influence other nations through its core values and culture. American democratic values including a free press, the legal justice system, and foreign engagement programs are potent sources of American soft power. When public trust in these American democratic norms and institutions wanes, America stands to lose its invaluable soft power. Among President Trump’s many actions that diminish U.S. soft power—from his persistent, pernicious attacks on the American media, legal system, electoral process, universities, and allies, to his constant maligning of past U.S. presidents and his racist mocking of current U.S. politicians—it’s Trump’s attempt to terminate the nation’s long-running international exchange and aid programs that could have the most deleterious effects, making America weaker at home and abroad.
The House Is on Fire: White America’s Own Civil War
For decades, America pretended its Civil War was over. It wasn’t. The battlefield just moved—from fields to feeds, from muskets to microphones, from soldiers to citizens.
Fortress Borders: the Rise of Anti-Immigrant Nationalism (Immigration Policy Brief #192)
International migration continues to grow, with the UN’s International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimating there were 281 million international migrants globally in 2020. While much migration is South-South (between developing nations), displacement from conflict, climate change, and economic instability drives significant South-North movement. This visible migration has become a foundational issue for populist movements, particularly in Europe and North America, which frame migrants as a threat to cultural identity and national security. In response, governments are increasingly adopting deterrence-focused policies, raising significant human rights concerns.
Coal Revival in the Age of Climate Emergency: Inside Trump’s New Energy Gamble (Environmental Policy Brief #183)
In a move that has startled climate scientists and energy economists alike, the Trump administration recently unveiled a sweeping new initiative aimed at reviving America’s coalindustry—a sector long regarded as both an economic relic and a climate catastrophe. The plan, a mix of subsidies, deregulation, and export promotion, represents a dramatic reversal of the Biden-era shift toward renewable energy and the most significant policy intervention in favor of coal since the early 2000s.
The Impact of New Energy Policy on the Coal Industry (Environmental Policy Brief #182)
Most economic and energy analysts define coal as having an impending obsolescence, regardless of government intervention. Forcing more years out of coal plants that are aging past their end of life will end up passing unnecessary costs onto consumers. A study by independent consulting firm Grid Strategies has found that the real cost of mining defunct coal facilities will end up costing end consumers up to $6 billion a year USD.
The Uncertain Future of the Department of Education and Title IX (Education Policy Brief #209)
Leading up to the 2024 election, Donald Trump promised to dismantle the Department of Education, a sentiment that was supported in an executive order from the White House following Trump’s inauguration and also outlined in Project 2025. In a press release for the DOE published in March, U.S. Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, reiterated this plan, stating that her “vision is aligned with the President’s: to send education back to the states and empower all parents to choose an excellent education for their children.” In recent weeks, McMahon reaffirmed that the Trump administration is committed to fulfilling this promise by 2029.
The Uncertain Future of the Department of Education and Title IX (Education Policy Brief #209)
Education Policy Brief #209 | Katie Lever | October 10, 2025
Summary
Leading up to the 2024 election, Donald Trump promised to dismantle the Department of Education, a sentiment that was supported in an executive order from the White House following Trump’s inauguration and also outlined in Project 2025. In a press release for the DOE published in March, U.S. Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, reiterated this plan, stating that her “vision is aligned with the President’s: to send education back to the states and empower all parents to choose an excellent education for their children.” In recent weeks, McMahon reaffirmed that the Trump administration is committed to fulfilling this promise by 2029.
One of the fundamental jobs of the DOE is to allocate funds to educational institutions that receive federal funding. However, because laws pertaining to education cross state lines, this paints an uncertain picture for the future of education in the United States. This reality directly intersects with one of the most groundbreaking and far-reaching policy pieces in American history: Title IX.
Signed into law by Richard Nixon in 1972 as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX states that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance[.]” Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination at educational institutions and programs receiving federal funding, including primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, and extracurricular programs housed within these institutions (like sports teams). While Title IX does not directly address sexual harassment or assault, it helps female students navigate the legal process surrounding these acts by framing them as acts of sex-based discrimination and offering victims legal recourse when they are violated by their peers or superiors hired by their educational institution. Additionally, some teachers and staff are mandatory reporters, meaning that, under Title IX, they must report allegations of sexual harassment or abuse when disclosed by students. And because Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, it works in favor of men, too. For example, in 2021, members of the Clemson University men’s track team filed a Title IX complaint when their program was set to be eliminated the following season, arguing that not only did the university not provide enough support for female athletes, but that eliminating the men’s team would lead to proportionately fewer opportunities for men, which is also a Title IX violation. After submitting the complaint and gaining legal support, the men’s program was reinstated and Clemson promised that the university would complete a full gender equity review in coming years.
Title IX is enforced through several channels, including legal retaliation, criminal charges, and withdrawal of federal funding–if an educational institution that receives federal funding is found to be in violation of Title IX, the ultimate penalty is that its funding can be revoked. Additionally, many institutions that receive federal funding set up Title IX departments and enforcement officers and create reporting and investigation procedures to ensure that they are not in violation of the law. But with the current administration’s plan to dismantle the DOE with no clear strategy for replacing it, the future of Title IX is uncertain to say the least. Although a post-DOE world would not necessarily do away with Title IX or nullify it entirely, the potential landscape could severely limit the law’s reach.
Analysis
Title IX is by no means perfect. The three-prong test designed to measure its enforcement sets the gender equity bar low, and it is the responsibility of the victim of sex-based discrimination to report it, which makes for a difficult road to justice for impacted parties. Additionally, unlike in Title VII, the term “sex” in Title IX legally does not extend to gender identity or sexual orientation, and though some administrations have interpreted it that way, others conceptualize “sex” in Title IX as simply referring to sex assigned at birth. But Title IX nonetheless was a foundational piece of legislation that provided women access to education and sports like never before. From 1972 to 2012, women’s athletic participation increased sixfold, and female representation in the classroom, too, skyrocketed, as the number of women attaining at least a college degree tripled from 1968 to 2011. By setting up a precarious future for the law, the Trump administration puts over 50 years of such progress at risk.
Regardless of the future, history shows that the fastest and easiest way to hamstring women’s advancement in society is to deny them access to education and sports. This has already partially been achieved with the striking down of Roe vs. Wade in 2023. Forced pregnancies and births halt the future aspirations of many women, especially in a country that does not also offer them benefits like universal healthcare, government-funded childcare, and paid maternity leave. The post-Roe landscape has already led to over 64,000 births resulting from rape in red states and mothers living in states with abortion bans face double the risk of dying during pregnancy and childbirth than those residing in abortion-friendly states.
Dismantling the DOE could be a logical next step in the continued subjugation of women by de-fanging Title IX via the dismantling of the DOE. Much like abortion laws, leaving education up to the states could be disastrous for women.
Political Violence
OP ED | USRESIST NEWS TEAM | September, 2025
At the center of all affective communities is an element of trust. There needs to be trust that you can say and write and do things without fear of a violent reprisal. Of course criticism and non-violent blowback are fair game. But murder or even messages instilling hatred and violence towards one’s opponent cannot be tolerated. These acts are the destroyers of trust as well as lives.
This is why the growing incidence of political violence in America is so disturbing. It seems that within the past decade we have witnessed incident after incident of political assassinations and attempted murders. For example there was the Congressional baseball practice shooting in June 2017;the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot in October 2020; the Brett Kavanaugh murder plot in June 2022; the Paul Pelosi attack in October 2022; the Trump assassination attempts in 2024; the firebombing of Josh Shapiro’s residence in April,2025, the assassination of Melissa Hortman and her husband in June 2025; the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk; and of course the January 2021 Capitol insurrection.
Who is more responsible—the Right or the Left? Some cite a 2023 Justice Department Report that documents the greatest amount of political violence as being attributable to Republicans. But there are those who claim that Democrats hold the preponderance of responsibility. It is foolish, we feel, to argue about which side is more responsible, and time to recognize that responsibility and accountability for political violence can be attributed to both sides.
It also is useful to note that many acts of political violence are conducted by those not associated with the Right or the Left; individuals who are mentally disturbed, who use acts of political violence as a means of exorcising their own personal demons. However our political leaders seize on these incidents and turn them into ammunition for their political diatribes.
Is it too late to stop the American trend to violence that haunts our political climate ? We at USRESIST NEWS believe it is not too late; that there are steps that those in power, as well as we citizens, can take to stem the tide. These include;
- Leaders setting the tone: The conditions for political violence usually are influenced by the attitudes and words expressed by a country’s leader. So far President Trump has not called out the dangers of political violence, and has instead said often makers accusations of Blue State and Left Wing perpetration. We are hopeful he will change his tone and condemn political violence on all sides.
- Agreement between political parties: It would be helpful for there to be a Compact between the two major political parties that calls for a moratorium on all political violence. Sadly due to the current level of hostility between the two parties it is unlikely that such a Compact will occur in the near future.
- Regulation of political rhetoric: It also is incumbent on members of both parties to moderate and scale down the sometimes violent tone of their rhetoric; reduce the incidence of hate speech; and refrain from posting hateful social media messages that demonize the other side.
- Supportive judicial rulings: Judges could include admonitions against political violence when ruling on cases with opportunities to do so. The Supreme Court especially is in a position to make decisions that establish judicial precedent for rulings related to political violence
- More effective national gun control laws: The growing incidents of political violence in part reflect the trend towards the arming of America. We are the country with the greatest amount of gun ownership and gun violence in the world. Those who use guns to settle political scores reflect the use of guns and gun violence in our community writ large.
______________________________________
Politics is not religion; a lost election is not the end of the world. Many Americans fail to see things in this light, and that is a major reason for the growing incidence of political violence in our country. The point is, as the writer Yascha Monck says: ”Violence as a means of politics must always remain unacceptable in a democracy, whether it targets outspoken conservative podcasters or progressive politicians or senior judges or corporate executives. For we all stand to lose when the price of sharing one’s ideas, right or wrong, left or right, radical or milquetoast, becomes incalculable.”
Comment: Contact roncisrael@gmail.com
Can The Government Prosecute Protesters For Their Speech? (Civil Rights Policy Brief #248)
Civil Rights Policy Brief #248 | Rodney Maggay | September 2025
Policy Summary: In recent weeks, members of the Trump Administration have made remarks regarding the punishment of protesters and the prosecution of perceived “hate speech.”
During a small outing by President Trump and a small group of officials at a public restaurant in Washington, D.C., the President was met by a small group of protesters. The protesters chanted “Free DC” and “Free Palestine” and also “Trump is the Hitler of our time!” The protesters were ultimately removed. However, the President later suggested the protesters should be charged under a racketeering statute since he said one of the protesters was a “paid agitator.” It is unclear where the President receivedthis bit of info or if it is even true. After this incident, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche gave an interview where he defended the idea of prosecuting protesters.
In the weeks after the killing of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, numerous public and privatefigures made comments about Kirk that could have been perceived as insulting and vulgar. Attorney General Pam Bondi then came forward and promised to prosecute instances of “hate speech.” Subsequently, after much criticism, Ms. Bondi tried to clarify her remarks and stated that she would only pursue cases that came with a threat of violence.
Finally, before he departed for a visit to Britain, President Trump suggested that journalists who were critical of him and his presidency should be prosecuted. He also implied that critical coverage of his administration could be a form of hate speech.
Policy Analysis: The theme from this Administration about prosecuting protesters and trying to classifycritical articles from journalists as “hate speech” represents a dangerous road that this Administrationshould not go down. First, the prosecution of protesters is not supported by the current laws of the United States. And, this Administration’s conception of what is truly “hate speech” is not how that category of speech has been traditionally viewed.
Under the First Amendment’s protection of free speech the right to protest is protected with some limitedexceptions. Under that protection is the underlying principle that the government may not silence views and viewpoints with which it disagrees. In the 1989 Supreme Court Texas v. Johnson the Court stated, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
Even with the tragic killing of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, that incident should not serve as the reason why our First Amendment protections should be quietly put away. But the President and others in his Administration are trying to silence dissent for the Administration’s policies and find waysto get around and ignore what the First Amendment provides.
In Todd Blanche’s interview he tried to characterize protests as inflicting “harm, terror” and “damage”but this is simply not true. There were no violent altercations or physical disruption. What is likely goingon is that the deputy attorney general and the president were trying to criminalize the protests in order tomore easily dismiss them and maybe have those who organized and funded the protests held criminallyliable.
The Supreme Court has issued decisions that have held that the government cannot punish speech simply because it is controversial and offensive. And the Court also has weighed in on organizerliability for protests. In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. and Counterman v. Colorado, the Supreme Court issued rulings that said protest organizers could not be held liable for the violent acts of a protester and that a punishment is only warranted if a protester posed a “true threat” to another physical person. For President Trump, Attorney General Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Blanche, their comments about going after protesters are simply wrong and go against established law in the United States. Government officials should not be commenting or talking in this misleading manner, especially when two of the three persons are trained lawyers.
Finally, “hate speech” is a rather complex free speech issue because of some confusion as to what it isand if “hate speech” is protected as free speech under the First Amendment. Under the First Amendment, hate speech is not a legally recognized category in the United States. While it may be a recognizedcategory in other countries, it is not here in America. Hate speech in the U.S. can be understood as anumbrella that encompasses different types of vulgar or hateful speech with some types protected under the First Amendment and others not protected. Those that are not protected as speech are those that posetrue threats of imminent physical violence, harassment and speech that is obscene (in a sexual manner).So even though there is speech that is demeaning to race, gender, religion or other grounds, it cannot be punished because those kinds of words and utterances are meant to contribute to public policy debates no matter how vulgar the language may be. That speech is protected by the First Amendment. Viewed in this context, AG Bondi’s threats to punish hate speech is not legally feasible and she was wrong to threaten prosecution. Even if we do not agree or like with what is being said Ms.
Bondi has no legal justification to try and target protesters for what they said in the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk killing. She may have simply been trying to vent her frustration at what was being said about him or trying to mischaracterize those statements as violent speech when that was not the case.And, for President Trump to try and characterize a journalist’s criticism of him as hate speech is foolish. Criticism of an Administration’s policy goals is not hate speech at all but simply ordinary debate of public issues that a President should expect. As Justice Samuel Alito stated in 2017, “the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.”
We hope that this AdministraGon and other government officials would have a clearer understanding intheir interviews and comments about how Free Speech protecGons under the First Amendment works.
Engagement Resources
Freedom Forum – arGcle on Supreme Court cases dealing with organizer liability for protests. FIRE(FoundaGon for Individual Rights & Expression) – arGcle on the concept of hate speech. ACLU – (American Civil LiberGes Union) – arGcle from non – profit group on free speech and government retaliaGon.
Zuckerberg Keeps Coming For Your Children (Technology Policy Brief #157)
Brief # 157 Technology Policy | Mindy Spatt | October 4, 2025
Summary:
Complaints about META’s failure to protect children from the ills of social media continue to plague the company. Most recently, unauthorized images of children were used in ads for Meta’s Threads app, and a significant study of the company’s improvements in response to previous concerns criticized its efforts as largely ineffective.
Analysis:
Allegations that Meta doesn’t do enough to protect children from the ills of its social media products are not new. Recent revelations show those allegations haven’t driven META to change course or take any meaningful steps to protect children and teens. Efforts to hold the company accountable for its disregard of youth safety or rein in unsafe practices are not moving forward.
A lawsuit by over 30 State Attorneys General filed in 2023 alleges that Meta deliberately targets young people in its marketing of Facebook and Instagram despite knowing full well that the platforms are potentially harmful to them. After META’s motion to dismiss was denied, the case entered the discovery phase, and a trial or settlement is still far off.
Allegations similar to those contained in the lawsuit were made during a Senate hearing in September, when Arturo Bejar, a former director for Facebook’s Protect and Care program who is now a whistleblower, testified that top company executives were aware of the detrimental impact their platform had on young people. They had been presented with data showing that teenagers and children often experience bullying, sexual solicitation, and body shaming on Meta’s platforms, leading to depression and, in some cases, suicide.
The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law cited Bejar’s testimony as a compelling reason to advance the proposed Kids Online Safety Act, which, despite bipartisan support and Senate passage, is stalled in the House of Representatives.
In the meantime, with profits up, you might think META would back off from looking toward children for revenue on its own, but you’d be wrong. Parents of schoolgirls were outraged when they recently discovered their own photos of their children had been used by Meta to advertise its social media products, almost exclusively to adult men. One recipient reported seeing girls who appeared to be young teens in short school uniforms with their faces and, in some cases, names visible. According to Meta, its terms of service allowed it to cross-post the parents’ and other users’ photos from their private accounts to its Threads app, where they were visible and, in some cases, were highlighted to an adult male audience as “suggested threads”.
Just days after the Threads issue came to light, a damning report on measures voluntarily instituted by Meta to protect children and teenagers was issued and found the measures “woefully ineffective.” The report, “Teen Accounts, Broken Promises,” analyzed ten years’ worth of supposed efforts by Instagram to promote youth safety and well-being. The groups issuing the report, the Molly Rose Foundation in the United Kingdom and Parents for Safe Online Spaces in the U.S., were founded by parents who claim their children were harmed and, in some cases, died as a result of social media harassment and bullying, or dangerous content, including content about self-harm.
Whistleblower Arturo Bejar was part of the team. Researchers did find that some of the teen account safety features worked as advertised, such as a “quiet mode” meant to temporarily disable notifications at night, and a feature requiring parents to approve changes to a child’s account settings.
That may be cold comfort to concerned parents. According to Clare Morello, Fellow, The Ethics and Public Policy Center, and author of a book on digital harms to teens and kids, “The collective nature of the harms from digital technologies makes it extremely difficult for individual parents to successfully protect their children or even opt out of them entirely.” What Morello does recommend is legal accountability, which hasn’t happened yet. “Parents need legislation from the government to help them effectively protect their children from online dangers.”
ENGAGEMENT RESOURCES
The Tech Exit: A Practical Guide to Freeing Kids and Teens from Smartphones by Clare Morell, Penguin Random House, 2025.
Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism by Sarah Wynn-Williams, Flatiron Books, 2025. (A former employee’s exposé of Facebook’s inner workings).
When our national parks get in the way of national greed (Environmental Policy Brief #212)
Environmental Policy Brief #212 | Todd J. Broadman | October 7, 2025
POLICY
For the 2026 federal budget year, beginning October 1st, the White House has proposed a $1.2 billion – or 36% – cut to the National Park Service (NPS). Prior to this proposed budget cut, around 2,800 NPS employees had either been fired or resigned their positions under an early retirement buyout. Under the Biden administration, the NPS employed around 20,000 staff. The NPS manages 63 national parks and 370 other sites that include lesser-known historic sites, monuments, and national seashores.
Amid these cuts, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has required parks to remain open. Reasons given for the cuts by the Trump administration center on making government more efficient and a shifting of budget dollars to agencies and programs that can demonstrate immediate economic growth and job creation.
In addition to the NPS budget cuts, the administration is looking at ways to transfer NPS-managed parks to the states and tribal governing bodies. This is in line with similar transfers being explored with varying agencies under the federal umbrella. Given that most of the agencies were established by federal legislation, new legislation will be required to complete the proposed shifts. That raises the question: where would the funding come from at the state level?
Among the organizations actively opposing these moves are the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). The Coalition is made up of 4,600 former, current, and retired NPS employees. They see the great risks and have dedicated their careers to restoring and maintaining these natural and cultural treasures. They foresee an additional 35% – 40% drop in Forest and Park Service staff. (At the time of this writing, there is a government shutdown due to a stalemate over the fiscal budget resulting in 60% of NPS employees on furlough until a budget is approved).
The concerns of rangers and biologists and other senior NPS staff are not the concerns of the Trump administration. The dedicated professionals in the field have a conservation mindset that runs counter to the economic development mindset of those in the Oval Office and at the Department of the Interior. The immediate impact will be the closure of campgrounds, visitor centers, museums, and guided programs. Trails will have no rangers present. Basic services like sanitation and emergency response will not be available.
Most environmental groups are asking the government to temporarily close the parks for safety reasons. A key aspect of the staffing cuts is that many senior staff have left or are in the process of leaving, and this too impacts safety and overall park management. They hold vital institutional knowledge.
ANALYSIS
As with other federal agency cuts, we have a populist President who has turned a deaf ear to those who voted him in office. Over 80% of those polled by Data for Progress actually want to maintain or even increase funding for our national parks, and the NPS enjoys “favorable views” from over 75% of respondents. In line with the downsizing of other agencies, this administration makes across the board cuts before a detailed look into the “waste, fraud, and abuse” it claims to be targeting. The American public sees no reported details of “enhanced efficiencies.”
What does seem to be clear is that staff cuts are focused on senior researchers who are actively trying to protect endangered plant and animal species, as this research poses an obstacle to commercial resource development. Commenting on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Desirée Sorenson-Groves, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Refuge Association, says that “staff were forced out because of the issues they work on.” The 9,000 employees of the FWS oversee the National Wildlife Refuge Systems, conduct vital population surveys, manage invasive species removal, and recover threatened and endangered species.
Patrick Donnelly, Great Basin director at the Center for Biological Diversity, had a starker take: “It’s a travesty that Senate Republicans are putting more than 3 million acres of our beloved public lands on the chopping block to sell at fire-sale prices to build mega mansions for the ultrarich.”
With Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s White House orchestrated emphasis on “development,” federal lands are not only for mega mansions; those initial 3 million acres are primarily to be opened for drilling, logging, mining and grazing. These moves are no surprise as Trump promised this action (along with immigration reform) during his campaign. Most of the federal land holdings to be earmarked for drilling and excavation are in Alaska, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Additional land will be open for recreation, logging, and grazing.
Asserting dominion over the land by making it commercial productive “protects our American way of life,” according to Secretary Burgum. To be fair, it does reflect the voice of Trump’s hardcore MAGA supporters, and in that limited sense does, as Burgum says, “give our communities a voice in the land that they depend on.” 1 million square miles of underground mineral reserves – primarily for coal and lithium, will be fast-tracked for development.
In a related move, Trump signed the “Restoring Truth And Sanity To American History” Executive Order. Signage, statues, and other historical references at our national parks and forts will be subject to a re-reading of history that no longer vilifies the Indian genocides or African American slavery. Places and monuments named for confederate figures will be restored. A photo of a slave’s scars entitled “Scourged Back” has been removed from Fort Pulaski National Monument in Georgia, according to the New York Times. “The decision to remove this photograph from the interpretive displays at national parks is as shameful as it is wrong,” comments Alan Spears, NCPA’s Senior Director of Cultural Resources.
According to the official line in Washington D.C., we get this from Department of the Interior’s Elizabeth Peace: “As the President has stated, federal historic sites and institutions should present history that is accurate, honest and reflective of shared national values.”
Theresa Pierno, president and CEO of the NPCA, reflects on another set of American values. “Losing a quarter of the Park Service’s permanent workforce,” she says, “has made it nearly impossible for some parks to operate safely or effectively. And sadly, this is just the beginning.” Over and above their beauty, America’s public lands tell stories, they convey a history – that’s true of smaller ones like John Muir and grand ones like Yellowstone. For 38-year NPS career veteran, Sue Fritzke, the stories are being abandoned. She retired recently, to tell her own stories, in her new home in Canada.
In total, there are 640 million acres of federal land in the United States. That equates to 28% of the U.S. land mass. Over 3 million of those acres could be sold in the next five years, after Senate Republicans on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, with Trump’s endorsement, placed that land into the party’s major spending bill. Their aim is for extensive transfers of U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands for commercial development. The House Natural Resources Committee passed a version of the spending bill that called for 500,000 acres of public land sales in Nevada and Utah.
The budget thrashing at the NPS and related agencies, including the EPA, is a part of a much larger plan that envisions a restoration of America to its pioneer beginnings. The “great” in MAGA means there is a divine manifest destiny in stewarding God’s land through damming rivers, mining, logging, and oil extraction. Conservation efforts (and funding) is not part of “great.” (An exception is carved out to protect wild lands for hunters). There will be short-term economic gains for sure. The losses though, will be felt for decades to come.
US Resist Resources:
- https://www.npca.org/ the voice of America’s national parks, working to protect and preserve our nation’s most iconic and inspirational places for present and future generations.
- https://www.americanprogress.org/ an independent nonpartisan policy institute that is dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through bold, progressive ideas, as well as strong leadership and concerted action.
- https://www.lcv.org/ the League of Conservation Voters builds political power to protect people and the planet.
Unmasking the Target: Antifa & Trump’s Crackdown on Dissent (Elections & Politics Brief #199)
Elections & Politics Brief #199 | Morgan Davidson | 10/5/2025
Summary
Trump’s crackdown on political opposition, announced in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, is aimed at a range of Democratic and resistance groups. The first of these under examination is Antifa, a key target of the administration’s rhetoric and investigations. Yet Antifa is a far more diffuse and abstract entity than the White House suggests.
Unlike established organizations such as the ACLU or even the loosely structured Black Lives Matter movement, Antifa has no formal leadership, membership rolls, or mailing lists. You can’t “join” Antifa by signing up; it’s a movement rooted in shared tactics and ideology rather than centralized command. Its focus is opposition to fascism, not fundraising or hosting meetings. In this sense, Antifa is less an organization than an idea.
That lack of structure poses a challenge for the administration’s promise to “take action.” Without headquarters to raid or leaders to arrest, enforcement efforts will likely lack the tangible optics of a traditional crackdown. More troubling, such ambiguity risks ensnaring ordinary Americans who share antifascist views but have never engaged in violence, echoing the paranoia and overreach of past eras, from McCarthyism to the Red Scare.
Analysis
The roots of Antifa trace back to Europe in the early 20th century, when “anti-fascism” described militant resistance to Mussolini’s Blackshirts and Hitler’s Brownshirts. In the United States, the modern movement emerged out of anti-racist and anarchist circles during the 1980s and 1990s, particularly within the punk subculture and activist networks like Anti-Racist Action (ARA). By the early 2000s, local groups such as Rose City Antifa in Portland, Oregon, had adopted the Antifa label, drawing from this transnational lineage of resistance to far-right extremism.
At its core, Antifa defines itself around opposition to fascism, racism, white nationalism, and other forms of authoritarianism. The movement is not tied to electoral politics or legislative advocacy. Instead, it focuses on direct action, counterprotesting, monitoring extremist networks, disrupting far-right events, and publicizing the identities of individuals involved in hate movements. While adherents often share elements of anarchist or socialist thought, there is no unified ideological platform beyond opposition to fascism itself.
Antifa’s defining characteristic is its lack of structure. It has no national leadership, headquarters, or official membership. Anyone can act “under the banner” of Antifa so long as they adhere to its antifascist principles and tactics.
This decentralization is both its strength and its vulnerability. Local groups operate autonomously, using encrypted communication, mutual-aid networks, and informal coordination to organize actions.
Common tactics include:
- Counter-demonstrations and street mobilization.
- “Doxxing” individuals involved in far-right organizations.
- Promoting antifascist education and community defense initiatives.
Because there is no hierarchy or central fund, Antifa resists conventional state repression, there are no offices to raid or leadership figures to arrest.
During Trump’s presidency and return to political power, Antifa has become a symbolic foil for his administration, invoked frequently as shorthand for the “radical left.” Trump and his allies have repeatedly sought to label the movement as a domestic terrorist organization, despite legal experts noting that U.S. law provides no mechanism for such a designation.
In practice, Antifa activists have appeared most prominently at far-right rallies, including Charlottesville in 2017 and numerous street protests where they’ve clashed with white nationalist groups. While some incidents have involved property destruction or physical confrontation, researchers emphasize that these actions stem from local cells rather than a coordinated national campaign.
The very structure that protects Antifa’s anonymity also complicates accountability. Without a centralized body, it’s difficult to distinguish between self-identified participants and opportunists acting independently. Critics argue that this ambiguity allows violent actors to operate under the Antifa banner without oversight.
Civil-liberties advocates, however, warn that Trump’s efforts to criminalize or label the movement “terrorist” threaten the First Amendment and risk guilt by association or targeting ordinary citizens who share antifascist beliefs but do not participate in violent acts.
The proposed RICO investigations into alleged “funding networks” connected to figures like George Soros amplify these concerns, suggesting a broad, politically motivated sweep rather than a focused law enforcement response.
If the administration follows through with its promise to “dismantle” Antifa, the practical effect will likely be symbolic more than structural. The government may increase surveillance of left-wing activists, pursue financial investigations, or charge individuals connected to protest-related violence, but dismantling an idea is far harder than dismantling an organization.
At the same time, labeling dissenting citizens as “terrorists” risks deepening division and inflaming the very extremism such crackdowns claim to fight. For Antifa, the future may mean further retreat into anonymity and localized activism, smaller, more fragmented, but perhaps more determined.
Engagement resources–
- BBC – What is Antifa and why is President Trump targeting it? A primer on Antifa & Trump’s attack on the group. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ced5gqn0p6jo
- CSIS- Examining Extremism: Antifa: CSIS describes Antifa as a loose movement of local activists fighting fascism and racism — not a single organization — and notes it poses a far smaller threat than violent extremist groups on the far right. https://www.csis.org/blogs/examining-extremism/examining-extremism-antifa
- Institute for Strategic Dialouge- US ‘Antifa Groups’: The ISD describes Antifa in the US – https://www.isdglobal.org/explainers/us-antifa-groups/
The Government Shutdown: Why it Happened, and What May Happen Next (Elections & Politics Brief #198)
Elections & Politics Brief #197 | Nate Iglehart | October 2, 2025
Summary
Push has come to shove, and for the first time in six years, the United States government has shut down. Driven by disagreements over the Republican federal spending bill, which would let tax credits for many American’s healthcare insurance expire at the end of the year, this shutdown is shaping up to be different from the rest.
The last shutdown, in 2018, also occurred under a Trump administration and lasted a record 35 daysover a disagreement regarding funding Trump’s border wall. But with this shutdown, President Donald Trump has stated that it presents an “unprecedented opportunity” to continue his push to slash the federal workforce and gut federal agencies.
With pressure from Democratic constituents not to yield anymore to Trump’s pressure, the shutdown could drag on for weeks. So what exactly sets this shutdown apart from the rest, what will its repercussions be, what changes might Trump make while it continues, and how might it end?
Analysis
The main issue, at least nominally, regards the Trump-backed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Over the summer, cuts to the healthcare programs were predicted to cause nearly 12 million people to lose Medicaid coverage and another 5 million people to lose health insurance because of a reduction in government subsidies to private insurance.
These cuts are a big policy sticking point for Democrats, and are also seen as generally unpopular with Americans. Now, with separate health care tax credits expiring at the end of the year, Democrats have chosen this as the hill to die on, or rather, to shut down the government on.
The broader reason why Democrats are willing to shut down the government is to push back on Trump’s wide-reaching agenda that many see as an expansion of power beyond its limits that threatens democracy.
By finding a win here with healthcare spending, Democrats are looking for a political win before the midterms that will also help halt Trump’s funding cuts across the board. They also want to show Republicans that they must make legislative concessions across the aisle, and that they can’t just pass bills without meeting in the middle.
Republicans, on the other hand, want to show that they can keep the government funded and functioning, and passing a stopgap bill to maintain funding at current levels until late November would show their capability. Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has said that he won’t negotiate, and blames any consequences of the shutdown on Democrats
But the position of both parties is tenuous. Right now, Republicans control both chambers of Congress, with a 53-47 seat majority in the Senate and a 220-213 majority in the House. This means that for the spending bill to pass, 60 Senators would need to vote yes, and that would require at least 7 Democrats to give in (six if Republican Sen. Rand Paul continues to vote no) in order to pass the spending bill.
There have already been some Democrat senators who have voted yes to the bill, including Catherine Cortez Masto and John Fetterman, believing Republican claims that they are willing to negotiate the healthcare cuts after the spending bill is passed.
For the moment, the two parties are at an impasse, and the longer the impasse continues, the more damage will be done.
Government shutdowns have both short and long-term effects. Off the bat, about 40% of the federal workforce – nearly 750,000 people – will be furloughed on unpaid leave.
This will leave agencies like the civilian arm of the Departments of Defense, Health, Commerce, and State relatively gutted, along with the threat of shuttering US financial regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Additionally, national parks and federally funded museums will likely be disrupted, on top of canceled immigration hearings, delayed visa processes, and delayed federal loan approvals. Finally, social programs like Medicaid and food assistance programs will also be disrupted.
Other services like the postal service and many federally funded schools will likely only face minor disruptions, but if the shutdown drags on, things could change.
The damage in the event of an extended shutdown could be drastic in the long-term, as analysts estimateit could shave 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points off economic growth for each week. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office found that the 2018-2019 shutdown cost the U.S. economy $11 billion in economic output, including $3 billion that it never regained. Another analysis upped that number to $20 billion.
But on top of the economic effects, Trump has vowed to inflict extra pain on Democrats and use this shutdown to further push his agenda through. Already he has halted about $26 billion in previously approved funding for infrastructure and green energy projects that are mainly in Democrat-run states.
Russel Vought, the Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget and a key author of Project 2025, reportedly told Republican lawmakers that mass layoffs targeting federal workers who don’t align with Trump’s agenda could be imminent.
These moves are partially what sets this shutdown apart already. The administration’s seeming giddyness at shutting down the government and pulling every lever it can to inflict the maximum amount of damage on its political opponents does not bode well for any cross-aisle cooperation.
Broadly speaking, there are three rough ways this shutdown ends: the Democrats cave and vote the budget through without healthcare protections, the Republicans cave and mix healthcare protections into the spending bill, or nobody caves and that 35-day record gets broken with everyone suffering.
The first path, Democrats caving, is certainly possible; the two previous senators mentioned who’ve voted yes so far (Fetterman and Masto) don’t bode well for an already disunified party. As time goes, more people will likely blame the shutdown on the Democrats, and with Trump putting pressure on blue states and legislators, the pain may cause a few more Senators, some of whom might be up for reelection, to cross the aisle.
However, this shutdown is the stiffest resistance Democrats have put up to the Trump agenda so far, and they may choose this hill to die on. If their plan is to simply outlast a handful of Republican Senators (who might also have constituents to answer to at the midterms), it is not an impossible one.
In Missouri, Nebraska, and Wisconsin, GOP Congressmen faced heated town halls of voters angered over Trump’s rule-of-law breaches and Medicare cuts. The GOP is also not as unified under the MAGA banner as it was when the election was won.
There have been occasional breaks from Trump’s agenda by Senators arguing against things like ignoring nationwide injunctions and the U.S.’s involvements in foreign wars military operations, even from the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene.
On the healthcare front, Republicans are also split on the healthcare cuts. So while there is an advantage for the Republicans in the Senate, it is one that could be strained enough to cause a few defections.
The final path, an extended shutdown without an end in sight, would arguably be the worst case scenario. Blame against both parties would mount to new heights, while preventing an enormous array of public services from functioning.
On top of all of the normal consequences of a shutdown, the postal service would likely eventually halt, federal research grants would be completely stalled, and even airlines would be stressed to their absolute max.
Those airline issues actually were what helped end the last shutdown after 35 days, and air traffic controllers are bracing for another ordeal. This time, however, the stakes are much higher, and the air traffic controllers might not be the backstop this time.
Additionally, an already stretched Fed is now operating in the blind, as federal agencies responsible for key economic data collection said they will suspend the collection and distribution of data in the event of a government shutdown.
Whichever way these negotiations go, a government shutdown has very few winners amongst its citizens. As the shutdown drags on, pain will begin to be felt across the country, and with an already tense political atmosphere, it comes down to the legislators on Capital Hill right now to prevent hell from breaking loose.
Engagement Resources
- AP News is providing live updates on the shutdown, as is The New York Times.
- While the government won’t be providing economic data, private companies such as the ADP also release data on job openings, hiring, and wages. But it’s not as comprehensive or authoritative as official government data.
Instead of a Break Up, Google Gets a Slap on the Wrist (Technology Policy Brief #156)
Summary
Google’s critics and competitors celebrated a court decision last year that found Google in violation of antitrust laws due to its monopolies over search services and online advertising. Smaller companies, increasingly dependent on search rankings and online ads, simply can’t compete
Hopes were high that US District Judge Amit Mehta would force a breakup of the company. Those hopes were dashed on Aug. 31 when Mehta ruled on remedies in the case, issuing a light slap on the wrist that puts a stop to some exclusive search agreements and requires the company to share search data with competitors.
Analysis
In arguments before Judge Mehta, the US Department of Justice argued that Google’s exclusionary contracts and control of Chrome and the Android operating system allow it to exercise monopoly power. Google’s dominance extends to control over search engine advertising and the ad exchanges where prices are set. The Department’s original filing was joined by eleven State Attorneys General. Additional states filed a related action as the case progressed, and ultimately, the US DOJ was joined by 49 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia.
“Google is a monopolist,” Mehta wrote in his decision last year, “and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. Despite that, in the penalties phase of his decision, he inexplicably decided ‘remedies designed to eliminate the defendant’s monopoly—i.e., structural remedies—are inappropriate in this case.”
Mehta rejected the DOJ’s demands for both a Chrome spinoff and regulation of Android, opining that the prosecution “overreached in seeking forced divestiture of these key assets”. He didn’t even order Google to stop paying Apple $20B+ a year to be its default search engine, merely requiring such default payment agreements to be limited to one-year terms.
One Department of Justice recommendation the Judge did accept was that Google should have to share part of its search engine user and ads data with certain competitors for a limited period of time. That recommendation caused alarm among privacy advocates, despite the addition of an independent “Technical Committee” responsible for putting privacy safeguards in place.”
In addition, Google will be barred from entering exclusive distribution agreements of search, using Chrome, and other products of Google Assistant or its Gemini app The ban will be in effect for 6 years and will not be able to stop companies from distributing non-Google search engines, browsers, or AI data. While Google will no longer be able to require phones, tablets or computers to preload Google products in order to license Google Play, as it did previously, most companies will likely still do so, due to the outsized popularity of Google products. This part of the remedy appears to be too little too late.
The decision allows Google to continue many of the monopolistic practices Judge Mehta had called out in his initial decision, leaving many stunned and dissatisfied. Arielle Garcia, chief operating officer at Check My Ads Institute, was quoted as calling the decision “sorely disappointing” and said the remedies ordered would do little to help companies like hers level the playing field with Google.
In a public statement, Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International, said: “Google is one of five big technology companies that have a collective hold over the online world, and this concentration of power has come at a serious cost to our human rights. This ruling was a missed chance to rein in Google’s power.”
Gabriel Weinberg, CEO of Duck Duck Go, who had testified in the case ( see Will Google’s Antitrust Battle Lead to Real Change?), said on Reddit. “We do not believe the remedies ordered by the court will force the changes necessary to adequately address Google’s illegal behavior. Google will still be allowed to continue to use its monopoly to hold back competitors, including in AI search. As a result, consumers will continue to suffer. We believe Congress should now step in to swiftly make Google do the thing it fears the most: compete on a level playing field.”
There was satisfaction from one sector. Investors showed their approval of Mehta’s remedies immediately, sending Google’s share prices soaring.
Engagement Resources
Amnesty International, Technology and Human Rights https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/technology/
DOJ v. Google: Six Weak Spots in Judge Mehta’s Decision, by Joseph V. Coniglio, Aug. 23, 2024, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, https://itif.org/publications/2024/08/23/six-weak-spots-judge-mehta-google-decision/
The Youth Vote: Is There Much of One? Can It Make a Difference? (Social Justice Policy Brief #179)
Social Justice Policy Brief #179 | Inijah Quadri | September 20, 2025
Policy Issue Summary
Young voters are often called a “sleeping giant,” and in 2024, nearly half of eligible 18–29-year-olds voted—about 47%. That’s slightly less than in 2020 but more than in 2016. Turnout varied widely: states like Minnesota and Maine had over 60%, while Oklahoma and Arkansas were in the low 30s. These differences are closely tied to state policies. Places with easy registration and voting options—like online registration, same-day registration, and mail voting—had higher turnout. States with strict ID laws and limited access saw lower participation. In short: young voters showed up in 2024, but where and how much they participated depended heavily on state policies and systemic barriers. You can explore more in CIRCLE’s full analysis or theMAP youth voting report.
Analysis
The youth vote is not monolithic. In 2024, young voters still backed the Democratic ticket overall, but by a far narrower margin than in 2020; young women leaned one way, young men another, and white youth often diverged sharply from youth of color. That heterogeneity matters: it means “youth” is a field of contestation where policy, organizing, and lived conditions—especially economic insecurity—shape who votes and how.
Let’s proceed with more facts. In 2024, youth voter turnout was 47%, down slightly from 50% in 2020 but up from 39% in 2016. Turnout among 18–19-year-olds was lower than among older youth, and big gaps appeared by race and gender: young white women reached 58%, while young Black and Latino men were below 30%. States like Minnesota, Maine, Michigan, and Colorado had high turnout and shared policies like automatic, online, and same-day registration, pre-registration at 16, and mail voting. States with low turnout lacked these features. That’s not random—it’s built into the system.
Vote choice tells a parallel story. In 2024, young voters favored the Democratic ticket by roughly four points nationally—down from a 25-point margin in 2020. Within the 18–29 cohort, 18–24-year-olds leaned more Democratic than 25–29-year-olds; young women leaned left while young men leaned right; white youth tipped Republican while Black, Latino, and Asian youth remained Democratic but with smaller margins than in 2020. Donald Trump won the 2024 election not because lots of voters switched sides, but because more Republican-leaning voters turned out in key states. The difference in turnout made the biggest impact. The lesson is sober and simple: small swings or turnout gaps among youth can decide national outcomes.
Many young Americans are struggling financially and are skeptical of politics. In 2024, many said they were “barely getting by,” and the top issue was the economy and jobs. That made their voting less predictable—and whether they showed up depended on whether politics seemed to offer real help. It’s not just about messaging; it’s also about access. It’s easier to mobilize someone who can register online or on the day they vote. It’s harder when registration needs paperwork they don’t have or a weekday trip they can’t afford.
The policy environment is in flux, with clear consequences for young voters. Some states made it easier: Michigan started preregistration at age 16 in 2024, and Minnesota added automatic registration and better campus access—both saw high youth turnout. Other states went the opposite way: Idaho stopped accepting student IDs to vote, and courts upheld the change in 2024. Nationally, the U.S. House passed the SAVE Act in April 2025, which would require proof of citizenship—like a passport or birth certificate—to register. Experts say this could block online, mail, and DMV-based registration systems that many young people use.
So, what helps? A growing body of research finds that same-day registration boosts youth turnout; online registration and automatic voter registration are associated with higher youth registration rates; campus-accessible polling and early-vote sites make participation logistically possible for students without cars or flexible schedules. These aren’t abstract governance tweaks—they are the difference between “maybe next time” and a ballot cast.
So, is there “much of” a youth vote—and can it matter? Yes, and it already does. In battlegrounds like Michigan and Pennsylvania, 2024 youth participation held up or increased compared to 2020, despite national slippage, and the margins among young voters remained the best of any age group for Democrats—even as Republicans gained ground with young men and some voters of color. A handful of points among millions of voters is the stuff of power. The strategic takeaway is not to romanticize youth as uniformly progressive; it’s to invest in the proven mechanics that raise participation, expand the eligible pool early (through preregistration and robust civic learning), and meet material concerns with policy that improves daily life.
Equity in voting isn’t optional. The lowest youth turnout in 2024 came from young Black and Latino men, non-college youth, and rural youth—groups that already face big hurdles like lack of documents, transportation, and access to information. The SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register, would hit these voters hardest, making it even harder for them to participate. Experts say this would widen existing gaps in representation. Making voting easier is not just fair—it’s the most effective way to build a youth electorate that truly reflects the population.
Engagement Resources
- CIRCLE at Tufts University (Tufts Circle): Data, turnout estimates, and policy analysis on youth voting.
- Pew Research Center (Pew Research Center): Validated-voter analysis of 2024 turnout and vote choice trends, including age cohorts.
- Brennan Center for Justice (Brennan Center for Justice): State-by-state changes to voting rules and research on campus voting access.
- U.S. Census Bureau (CPS Voting & Registration) (Census.gov) : Official statistics on registration and voting rates.
- Vote.org (Vote.org): One-stop nonpartisan tools for registration, deadlines, and voting options.
- Harvard Institute of Politics Youth Poll (Institute of Politics): Current attitudes of young Americans shaping participation.
The ‘Radical Left’: Defining Dissent in Divided America (Elections & Politics Brief #196)
Elections & Politics Brief #196 | Morgan Davidson | September 21, 2025
Following Charlie Kirk’s assassination, President Trump is pushing to go after ‘radical left’ groups, those he claims promote political violence and engage in hate speech. What happened to Charlie Kirk is despicable & the politically motivated murder of an American has been condemned by leaders across the political spectrum. That said, the way we do that is by coming together as Americans not targeting our fellow citizens.
Trump has placed ANTIFA (Anti-fascist) and billionaire George Soros at the center of his response. He announced plans to designate ANTIFA as a terrorist organization in the coming weeks and to pursue RICO investigations into Soros and the groups he funds. These moves mark a significant escalation in the administration’s effort to frame left-wing networks as threats to national security.
While it is easy to promise to “go after” these groups, actually defining and identifying them will be difficult. Antifa, for example, functions more as a loose movement or set of tactics than a hierarchical organization with a payroll or membership database that officials could simply disable. Crucially, the people swept up by any enforcement campaign will be fellow Americans. Not every member will be an accused attacker such as Tyler Robinson, Matthew Thomas Crooks, or Vance Boelter; many will be friends, neighbors, colleagues, and coworkers.
As the recent shootings make clear, political violence is not confined to the Left or the Right. It is a national crisis. At a rally in the U.K., Elon Musk told supporters, “Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die.” Steve Bannon was equally stark, saying, “Charlie Kirk is a casualty of war. We are at war in this country.” Such rhetoric does not put us on a path to unity; it normalizes conflict and primes Americans for more violence.
Crackdowns on speech and the targeting of individuals or groups will only push America deeper into darkness. We already face a political violence problem — from January 6 to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we see the rise of illiberalism and a growing justification for violence as a political tool. The way forward is not more division but a renewed commitment to see one another as Americans, even more fundamentally, as humans first. We do not need to agree on every issue, but we must recognize our partisan counterparts as fellow citizens. To label and pursue them as enemies will only deepen tribalism and drive us further into an era of us-versus-them politics — and ultimately, into more violence.
The coming series will highlight the groups opposing the Trump administration’s policies. From the legal arm of the ACLU to the decentralized force of Antifa, to emerging grassroots projects like 50501, their efforts are as varied as the challenges they face. Some are rooted in courtrooms, others in the streets, but all reflect the same underlying question: how do Americans channel opposition in a moment defined by division and rising political violence? This series will examine these groups’ goals, tactics, and purposes, offering readers a clearer picture of how the administration’s rhetoric aligns, or conflicts, with the realities on the ground.
Engagement Resources
- BBC News – What is Antifa and why is President Trump targeting it? A primer on Antifa & Trump’s attack on the group. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ced5gqn0p6jo
- CNN- George Soros Fast Facts: Quick Facts & Background on George Soros. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/topics/immigration/
- ACLU- The ACLU’s about us introduction: The ACLU describes the organization in their own words. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/immigrants-rights